Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1236
PATNA HIGH COURT
Alok Kumar Sinha, J
Grijesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18437 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Mr. Awnish Kumar, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta
The court upheld the reliance on the matriculation certificate as the primary evidence for age determination, confirming the disqualification of the petitioner under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 - Section 136 - Disqualification for Membership - The petitioner contested the election but was declared disqualified by the State Election Commission due to his matriculation certificate stating a date of birth of 01.06.2001, which showed him under age; however, evidence was presented to show his actual birth date as 01.06.1981. The Court upheld the Commission's reliance on the matriculation certificate and dismissed the petition. (Paras 4, 10, 16)
(B) Election Law - Credibility of Documents - The court recognized the matriculation certificate as a credible document for determining age, reinforcing legal precedent that required clear verification from authoritative sources. (Paras 10, 12, 14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was disqualified based on the date of birth in his matriculation certificate dated 01.06.2001, despite other evidence suggesting he was born in 1981. A complaint was filed by a rival candidate, leading to his disqualification under Section 136.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the State Election Commission justifiably relied on the matriculation certificate, stating it was unimpeachable evidence for determining age, and dismissed the application for reinstatement.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the State Election Commission's reliance on the matriculation certificate, despite other supporting documents, was legally justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the matriculation certificate is credible for age determination, emphasizing that the Election Commission's decision was based on unimpeachable evidence and previous judicial guidance.
Result: Writ application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was disqualified based on an incorrect determination of age. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. multiple documents were presented to prove actual birth date. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. the petitioner contested reliance on age evidence but was ultimately dismissed. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. court upheld the use of matriculation certificate as valid evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. matriculation certificate acknowledged as priority evidence for age. (Para 12 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Date : 04-07-2025
1) Heard the parties.
2) The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for grant of following reliefs :-
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Respondent no.8 and contained in his memo no.3817dated 14.10.2024 whereby and where under, exercising his power under Section 136 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Gram Panchayat Act), the Respondent no.8 has beeri pleased to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of municipality of Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi under Kateya Block of Gopalganj District on the ground that according to petitioner's date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate and the marks-sheet produced by the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.06.2001 and therefore, on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper on 03.10.2021, the petitioner was aged about 20 years 4 months and 02 days notwithstanding that for the purposes of ascertainment of petitioner's age, the petitioner was referred to a Medical Board and the Medical Board has assessed his age to be more than 25 years.
(II) For a declaration that if there are other various documents in connection with the age of the petitioner like Adhar Card, PAN card, Passport etc., according to which, the petitioner was born in 1981 i.e. 01.06.1981 and to resolve the controversy, he was referred to Medical Board and Medical Board has assessed the petitioner's age to be more than 25 years on the date when he was examined by the Medical Board, the Respondent no.8 was not justified to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya even if according to the entry made in the matriculation certificate he was under age on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper i.e. 03.10.2021.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS ,commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post which he was holding on or before the passing of impugned order by the Respondent no.8 and communicated by the Respondent no.9 on 14.10.2024.
(IV) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State Election Commission had notified Panchayat Election, 2021 in Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi in which the petitioner, respondent No.6 and many other candidates had filed their nomination to contest for the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner and the respondent No.6 Smt. Punam Sharma are co-villagers and known to each other but on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper, i.e., 03.10.2021, no objection was raised by the respondent No.6 against the validity of petitioner’s nomination on any ground whatsoever including his age to contest the election. It is further stated that the petitioner, the respondent No.6, Smt. Punam Sharma and many other candidates contested the election and ultimately after counting of votes, the petitioner was declared elected for the pose of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdas Bagahi.
4) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the declaration of result in favour of the petitioner by the Returning Officer, a complaint under Section 136 (2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 was filed by the respondent No.6, Smt. Poonam Sharma be
